I'll watch it later when I'm in the mood, but I can get a tl;dw pls
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. moral relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.Challenging the age-old philosophical notion that we can never get an 'ought' from an 'is', Harris argues that moral questions are best pursued using, not just philosophy, but the methods of science. Thus, "science can determine human values" translates to "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing". It is in this sense that Harris advocates that scientists begin conversations about a normative science of "morality".
Okay now how about a tl;dr
The basis of his consequentialist utilitarianism (loosely defined) is that there is no other position to operate from when considering morality, first and foremost because nobody would sanely advocate a system of morality which resulted in abject destitution.
I remember reading something from him where he lists off philosophical words and characterizes them as "boredom inducing" before he makes his points. I was like "yeah w/e"
Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 03:16:22 PMI remember reading something from him where he lists off philosophical words and characterizes them as "boredom inducing" before he makes his points. I was like "yeah w/e"hueWhat's the book?
Quote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 03:27:21 PMHoly shit, reading that one guy's article on Nietzsche makes me want to punch a fucking wall.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 01, 2015, 03:17:11 PMQuote from: GodspeedSnowjira! on January 01, 2015, 03:16:22 PMI remember reading something from him where he lists off philosophical words and characterizes them as "boredom inducing" before he makes his points. I was like "yeah w/e"hueWhat's the book?The Moral Landscape?SpoilerAyy, while searching for it I found that RWTUG is unsurprisingly against him[This guy is totally nuts, but he brings up some super good points from time to time. You might wanna check the rest of his blog out too Meta]"... I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "anti-realism," "emotivism," and the like, directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe."lmao
Although, there still isn't any objective reason to follow utilitarianism.
Are you saying that there is no objective reason NOT to form an ethical benchmark?
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 04, 2015, 08:03:07 PMQuote from: Dustin xLilD on January 04, 2015, 07:57:41 PMAre you saying that there is no objective reason NOT to form an ethical benchmark?I'm saying any sort of methodology or philosophy which makes claims to objectivity has to have certain assuming values in the first place, in order to get anywhere.So an appeal to objectivity is meaningless, or irrelevant, as far as ethics are concerned?
Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 04, 2015, 07:57:41 PMAre you saying that there is no objective reason NOT to form an ethical benchmark?I'm saying any sort of methodology or philosophy which makes claims to objectivity has to have certain assuming values in the first place, in order to get anywhere.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 04, 2015, 08:09:52 PM"human well-being" is the only thing you can meaningfully base morality on.What exactly prevents a society from forming morality around Darwinist ethics (assuming Darwinism is in direct opposition to human well-being)?
"human well-being" is the only thing you can meaningfully base morality on.
since it's not really measurable.